FAA vs. Air Trek

denverpilot

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,469
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
DenverPilot
This may be really old news, but I couldn't find a previous thread on it.

135 Operator grounded for almost 15 months by an Emergency Revocation of their 135 Certificate for Air Ambulance operations. NTSB makes FAA pay $120,169.35 in 2010.

http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=10439

That's shocking enough, but the really interesting part is the deposition of the FAA Inspector.

No qualifications to do the job (he's former law enforcement, is all, according to a note I found somewhere) and has basically has nothing to say throughout the deposition as the Attorney asks him why he issued the Emergency Revocation in the first place.

He alludes to the idea that the person in charge of Maintenance for Air Trek "isn't sharp", as he's deposed on his own rules and can't list them, name them, or tell anyone why he did what he did.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W_42CGdgrw

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7XRmlqvT0&NR=1

As he states at the beginning of part 1, he's not only an Aviation Safety Inspector, but his specialty is Avionics. No A&P, no Avionics training. Nothing.

Makes one feel good to study the FARs, keep current, and do the right things -- when the FAA themselves can't hire people worthy of the title "Inspector", doesn't it?

And not to send this straight to SZ, but I'm deadly serious (and yes, the pun is intended)... these people want to run healthcare.

Apparently this guy is out of the Scottsdale FSDO, according to other various sources. Google turns up quite a bit of this, and I don't remember ever hearing jack about it.

No wonder more businesses don't start up in Aviation these days, eh? Some doofus with no qualifications can just slap them with an Emergency Revocation and put them out of business the next day, and it'll take over a year to straighten it out. Note also that the article says the NTSB's action to override these shenanigans was "unprecedented". That give you a warm fuzzy that they've never seen anything like this nor had to do this before? (Somehow I'm not believing they've never seen it.)

He has a very nice American Flag necktie though -- that makes everything all better, right?

We can all only pray we never run into someone this clueless on the ramp, clipboard in hand, I guess.
 
denverpilot said:
He has a very nice American Flag necktie though -- that makes everything all better, right?
Click to expand...
Depends. Did he also have a flag pin? That is the mark of a true patriot and a great American. A lack of those accouterments is the mark of someone less than a True AmericanTM. :D
 
I know the video was carved up and edited, but from the article you posted:

On June 10, 2008, the FAA issued an emergency order revoking Air Trek's air carrier certificate. Following a nine-day hearing, the ALJ modified the sanction from revocation to suspension.
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe that ANY sanction remained after that embarrassing testimony.
 
at least he didn't lie about anything....

so - where is this guy working now? I want to stay far away. I want to run in the opposite direction if I see him coming.
 
Last edited:
I should be surprised but I'm not.

This reminds me of the testimony of the TSA screener in one case where she admitted that she was searching to hope to find illegal items that could cause the passenger to be arrested - that far exceeded the limits of administrative search (and the case had to be dismissed & TSA had to settle).

I suppose we get the government we deserve.
 
Somehow I had the feeling its going to be our lovely Scottsdale FSDO.
 
The FAA wants to run healthcare?

That wasn't an article, it was a word for word regurgitation of a press release issued by their attorney.

I don't know what you do for a living but I can assure you that depositions are always painful and make the person being deposed look like a mouth breathing idiot even when they know what they are talking about. That is their actual purpose (as opposed to their stated purpose.)

Convenient that the "article" glosses over the fact that some of the charges were sustained by the ALJ. That is not a bar to recovery using the EAJA. Though it probably should be.

On the other hand the FAA attorney should have spent quality time with the guy way before the first hearing. This is typical unfortunately and they deserve what they got if for no other reason.
 
Last edited:
So you dismiss the whole part where he's not even qualified to pre-flight an aircraft, let alone inspect one, as the FAA Attorney's fault for not pre-deposing him?

How about whoever hired him? Root cause analysis: This guy shouldn't be inspecting dog kennels, let alone aircraft or aircraft maintenance records. And where do they get off giving him the specialization of "Avionics"?!

Think he might be able to pick up a soldering iron from the cold end and not burn himself? I doubt it. Truly an electronics expert there in that video, I'm sure.

Bet he couldn't pass a GROL if he tried. Let alone any of the specialty ratings.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Convenient that the "article" glosses over the fact that some of the charges were sustained by the ALJ. That is not a bar to recovery using the EAJA. Though it probably should be.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree strongly enough. Doing so would encourage agencies to "pile on" and add charges that might not stick in order to increase costs/pain to the regulated entity.

At least one field office of a federal agency had an enforcement policy at one time to throw charges (regardless of whether they were sustainable) at entities - noting that if the regulated party denied some of those charges they would have to admit to any other charges. (e.g. charge 'em with both paperwork and "failure to do" allegations, and the only way they can fight the "failure to do" is to admit to the paperwork violations - then we can hit 'em with "willful" and raise the penalties). The theory was that it would reduce that amount of work the officials would have to do because they would "coerce" the accused into admitting to something else & increase the penalties.

With that perspective, I saw much the same sort of thing occurring in the portions of the deposition that was presented..... it appeared that some charges were made without full investigation to try and sustain other charges & justify the revocation order.

At least I didn't see any hint that the inspectors were holding a contest to "outdo" each other in terms of number of violations cited.
 
denverpilot said:
So you dismiss the whole part where he's not even qualified to pre-flight an aircraft, let alone inspect one, as the FAA Attorney's fault for not pre-deposing him?

How about whoever hired him? Root cause analysis: This guy shouldn't be inspecting dog kennels, let alone aircraft or aircraft maintenance records. And where do they get off giving him the specialization of "Avionics"?!

Think he might be able to pick up a soldering iron from the cold end and not burn himself? I doubt it. Truly an electronics expert there in that video, I'm sure.

Bet he couldn't pass a GROL if he tried. Let alone any of the specialty ratings.
Click to expand...

You're not being fair. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is not qualified to inspect dog kennels.
 
Just so that you know there is another side. I remember reading on another pilot board about this company, and before the revocation happened there were pilots warning other pilots away from working there. Disgruntled employees, maybe. I don't know. The FAA didn't make a very good case, though.
 
Everskyward said:
Just so that you know there is another side. I remember reading on another pilot board about this company, and before the revocation happened there were pilots warning other pilots away from working there. Disgruntled employees, maybe. I don't know. The FAA didn't make a very good case, though.
Click to expand...

Or the company may have been bad. Entirely possible, especially since the attornies in the deposition kept focusing on "minimum standards". We all know that minimum standards are a starting point, and that what's legal is not always safe (and v/v).

Administrative law does not require the same burden of proof as criminal law, but it is still incumbent on the FAA to be truthful & ethical in how they make their case. The ALJ found that they didn't meet that burden for a number of the charges. The message that comes across from the video is that the FAA was "out to get" the company. Should we hold government enforcement folks to a higher standard (I'll stop there and direct attention to the Weiner thread in Spin Zone)?
 
gil_mor said:
Somehow I had the feeling its going to be our lovely Scottsdale FSDO.
Click to expand...
Please inform us of your suspicions. Arising from my contact with the herefore named FSDO I have my own. It is my opinion that our opinions may be congruent.
 
I know of two FAA emergency revocations. One is still unresolved after +3 years of legal wrangling. Both due to several recalcitrant FAA employees at (redacted) FSDO.
 
That's my info ;-)
denverpilot said:
...
Apparently this guy is out of the Scottsdale FSDO, according to other various sources. Google turns up quite a bit of this, and I don't remember ever hearing jack about it.............
Click to expand...
 
gil_mor said:
Somehow I had the feeling its going to be our lovely Scottsdale FSDO.
Click to expand...

Richard said:
Please inform us of your suspicions. Arising from my contact with the herefore named FSDO I have my own. It is my opinion that our opinions may be congruent.
Click to expand...

Richard said:
I know of two FAA emergency revocations. One is still unresolved after +3 years of legal wrangling. Both due to several recalcitrant FAA employees at (redacted) FSDO.
Click to expand...

Let'sgoflying! said:
http://sites.google.com/site/airtrek1/airtrekaccidentsandincidents
Click to expand...

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090424062706zzzz.nb/topstory.html
 
alaskaflyer said:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090424062706zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Click to expand...


But you still have to do it the right way. i dont know anything about Airtrek, never heard of them until this thread. But as a small business owner myself, who does have goverment oversight, I would hope that my customers, not the government will decide when to put me out of business IF, I am following all the laws and regs. I know if half of the jobs I did over 4 years went bad, Id be out of work! And it wouldnt take the government. No one would hire me! However I think the FAA overstepped in this case. Maybe they did need to be put out of business. You still have to do it the right way!
 
roncachamp said:
You're not being fair. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is not qualified to inspect dog kennels.
Click to expand...

Until he produces his Dog Kennel Certificate of Inspection Authorization, I will adamantly deny his qualification to do so.
 
alaskaflyer said:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090424062706zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Click to expand...

I did a search of the NTSB aviation accident database (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx) and entered "Air Trek" into the arbitrary keyword search field in the Event Details section. Others may wish to verify whether I located all relevant records and whether their interpretations match mine.

Just 4 accidents listed, one of which resulted in fatalities. The two in the U.S. had NTSB probable causes. Neither of those were due to the fault of poor maintenance of the aircraft or suggestive of any systemic problem at Air Trek. The cause of the Panama crash isn't clear. Poor maintenance is one possible cause for the Bahamas crash - this is the only one in which an Air Trek plane exhibited a clear mechanical failure.

I don't see how the accident record shows any systemic problem with Air Trek.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Just 4 accidents listed, one of which resulted in fatalities. The two in the U.S. had NTSB probable causes. Neither of those were due to the fault of poor maintenance of the aircraft or suggestive of any systemic problem at Air Trek. The cause of the Panama crash isn't clear. Poor maintenance is one possible cause for the Bahamas crash - this is the only one in which an Air Trek plane exhibited a clear mechanical failure.

I don't see how the accident record shows any systemic problem with Air Trek.
Click to expand...
Don't you think 4 accidents in 4 years, one with fatalities, is quite a few?
 
Everskyward said:
Don't you think 4 accidents in 4 years, one with fatalities, is quite a few?
Click to expand...

That's a subjective determination.

Did you read the Air Trek accident in which the NTSB basically ripped into the FAA and secondarily Cessna for their actions? It placed the probable cause smack dab on the FAA! That's rare. Who knows - maybe somebody at the FAA is disgruntled about that and is taking it out on Air Trek:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20070415X00413&key=1

One could make a case about the timing - half way into the NTSB's investigation the FAA starts getting uncomfortable and nasty queries from NTSB and some people start to look bad - they can't do much to another government agency, so being petty they decide to take it out on the next target in line: Air Trek.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
That's a subjective determination.
Click to expand...
OK, so I should say that it's my opinion that when a company crashes half their airplanes (4 out of 8), as reported by one of those news articles posted, in 4 years it would raise red flags.

Jim Logajan said:
Did you read the Air Trek accident in which the NTSB basically ripped into the FAA and secondarily Cessna for their actions? It placed the probable cause smack dab on the FAA! That's rare. Who knows - maybe somebody at the FAA is disgruntled about that and is taking it out on Air Trek:
Click to expand...
I doubt it. That debate about ice bridging has been going on for a long time.
 
Jim Logajan said:
That's a subjective determination.

Did you read the Air Trek accident in which the NTSB basically ripped into the FAA and secondarily Cessna for their actions? It placed the probable cause smack dab on the FAA! That's rare.
Click to expand...

You have it exactly backwards, actually. Read the pc determination again.

One could make a case about the timing - half way into the NTSB's investigation the FAA starts getting uncomfortable and nasty queries from NTSB and some people start to look bad - they can't do much to another government agency, so being petty they decide to take it out on the next in line.
Click to expand...

That's a subjective determination ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top